Council is Overdue for Change
Letter to the editor

Voters will have a chance to change the council majority on Nov. 7 as well as the tone at city hall. With three seats to be decided, the council could improve dramatically. I'm recommending a vote for Jim Woodin, Michael Ferrall and Councilman John Paul Ledesma. These three candidates offer the best experience, ideas and integrity.

Residents deserve a council they can be proud of. We've seen too many examples of current council members catering to special interest while ignoring the residents. Mission Viejo is overdue for having a council majority that acts on principle and demonstrates ethical behavior.

Milt Jacobson
Mission Viejo

Ill Will Undermines Election Issues
Letter to the editor

Emails were flying last week from one of the campaigns accusing others of taking their signs. By the time I saw my name in one of the emails, it was quite a surprise. I have never touched any signs of candidates except those I support, and I believe campaigns that focus on sign wars don’t care about issues.

The Greenwood campaign worker making the accusations last week also complained that someone stole numerous signs she placed along Chrisanta. Two people saw her posting signs, and she failed to mention that the signs were on the front lawn of Mission Viejo High School. School officials came out of the building immediately – the signs did not stand on school property for more than minutes before officials took them away. No other campaign took her signs.

The candidates who are maligning others have given voters a clear picture of the ill will they would bring to the council. Residents voted out such council members in 2002, and we should all hope not to take a big step backwards in this election.

Connie Lee
Mission Viejo

Protect Quality of Life
Letter to the editor

Citizens of Mission Viejo don’t want a dramatic change for the city, but they want their quality of life protected. Our quality of life involves such basic issues as low-density housing, a sound budgetary basis for city government, strong police services, mobility for our seniors and infrastructure improvements.

Drastic changes for the city – such as a business zone overlay allowing residents to purchase lofts above businesses – creates many new challenges to our citizens’ quality of life. Besides the problem of children playing in parking lots instead of neighborhood parks, our city was not created by the Mission Viejo Company to be like cities in north Orange County. It was created as a low-density housing community for citizens who did not want to live in other cities. In fact, many of the residents who purchased homes from the Mission Viejo Company moved to Mission Viejo to escape the abovementioned problems. Their quality of life suffered and they wanted change.

Mission Viejo is a great place to live, and many citizens do not want their city government to be a sponsor for change that abrogates their property values or implements new future visions for the city. Such changes are contrary to why they moved to Mission Viejo in the first place.

James Edward Woodin
Mission Viejo

Forum question for Oct. 21 Issue

If elected to the city council, would you favor increasing the number of homes in Mission Viejo in contradiction with the Master Plan? This issue is reflected in two questions suggested by readers. One reader further asks if candidates want to scrap the city’s Master Plan, and the other asks if candidates are supporting plans to overturn zoning at Marguerite and La Paz to enable the building of apartments.

Response from Jim Woodin:

Answering the question about increasing the number of homes in Mission Viejo has two parts. First, there is no land left in the city for stand-alone housing units. Second, the question must therefore be addressing high-density housing. High density works against the city’s Master Plan because it always creeps into commercial zones in the form of rezoning to mixed use. This is contrary to the Master Plan designed by the Mission Viejo Company years ago when many of our residents purchased their property. Most of the current council members never lived here during that period of time or they didn’t purchase their property from the Mission Viejo Company. Maybe that’s the reason some council members place little value in the Master Plan. A Citiizens Initiative now before the council will correct this problem by giving the voters the opportunity to vote on deviations from the Master Plan.

Commercial zones such as the one at Marguerite and La Paz are just that, “commercial zones.” Residential overlays being discussed by the current council are not in the Master Plan. The concept of Mission Viejo did not provide for children playing in parking lots. The Mission Viejo Company designed a city of low-density, single-family dwellings with high quality of life. High density is contrary to the expectations of most longtime residents and other residents as well.

Response from Michael Ferrall:

I oppose increasing the number of homes in our city. Mission Viejo homebuyers believe they invested in the city’s Master Plan whether they purchased their home last week or 30-some years ago. The city’s well-defined plan formerly had a dwelling unit cap – only a limited number of homes would be built. A previous council quietly lifted the cap, although I believe residents strongly object to more homebuilding. The Master Plan isn’t just an option the city council can overturn at will, but that’s what councils have been doing over the years. The city is built out, yet the current council has continued allowing housing development. If elected to the council, I will stop this trend. To address the two related questions submitted by readers: 1) I will defend the Master Plan; 2) I will oppose rezoning of any commercial property to residential and specifically at La Paz and Marguerite. In my opinion, some of the biggest mistakes of previous councils have been changes to the Master Plan. The changes were short-sighted, and the damages are everlasting. As an example, the addition of apartments in south Mission Viejo was a mistake. Schools, neighborhoods, traffic and quality of life have all been negatively impacted. Each council has been unable or unwilling to learn from the mistakes of previous councils, and the damage will continue until residents stop it at the ballot box.

Response from John Paul Ledesma:

To put this into perspective, the largest changes to Mission Viejo’s General Plan happened in the early 1990s, and any zoning change means the General Plan for the City of Mission Viejo has to be changed. Just because a change is made does not mean that a residential cap has been exceeded.  Part of the General Plan is the Housing Element and according to the State of California we do not have a valid housing element. My public record has demonstrated that I do have a bias and that representing the citizens of Mission Viejo is my greatest objective. If I write that I will do anything other than give fair consideration to a
proposal I will be doing a disservice to my fellow residents and would disqualify myself from the process.

Response from Trish Kelley:

I am opposed to rezoning the commercial center on LaPaz and Marguerite, or placing housing in this center.  I am opposed to any high-rise apartment buildings in our City.  Mission Viejo must consider the addition of residential units, due to the mandate from the State of California to provide an additional 94 affordable housing units.  I hope to address as many units as possible of this requirement through the renovation of existing apartments, in order to minimize the overall increase of residences.  I listened to residents who expressed interest in placing the required affordable units in several areas of the city in small numbers.  We cannot ignore the mandate from the State because it places us at risk of litigation.  I do not want to have city dollars spent defending lawsuits from housing advocates.  We must carefully address the shortfall and provide a solution that fits in and does not change the climate of our beautiful city.

Forum for City Council Candidates

A question suggested by blog reader “T.N.” – What’s the most important issue facing the city?

The blog will email the question to all 10 council candidates and publish their responses in next week’s issue.

Protect Our Unique Community
by Lisa De Paul-Snyder

Mission Viejo is unique because it was designed as a master-planned community, with a balance of homes, schools, churches, shopping areas, parks, recreational facilities and other essential quality-of-life benefits. Families moved here to share in the California Promise of Mission Viejo.

Now, that promise is being driven to extinction by city council members who have taken monies from developers and other special interests. Mission Viejo was never meant to be a metropolis with multistoried high-density housing, affordable housing stacked on top of shopping centers, daily traffic snarls and overcrowding everywhere you look, but that is exactly what the current council supports.

To stop the hyper-development and urbanization of our community, residents need strong and effective leaders who are civil and honest.

• We must elect council members who will:
• Fight all efforts to build new high-density affordable housing units
• Represent the residents, not the special interests of campaign contributors
• Do everything possible to minimize the harmful effects of illegal immigration on our schools, roads and community services

Remember to vote November 7.

Voter Guide for Mission Viejo City Council
Editorial staff

Ten candidates will vie for three council seats on Nov. 7, including incumbents John Paul Ledesma, Trish Kelley and Lance MacLean. Challengers are Jim Woodin, Michael Ferrall, Bill Barker, Neil Lonsinger, Brian Skalsky, Diane Greenwood and Justin McCusker.

John Paul Ledesma: Yes. Council member with seniority at age 38 – the diplomatic one who generally supports the residents and keeps his promises. He has an imperfect voting record after approving two high-density housing projects, and he supported a redevelopment deal in 2003. Despite this, he should be reelected.

Michael Ferrall: Yes. He brings leadership and tenacity that others lack. Least likely to become squishy on principles and promises. Solution-oriented. Five-term former state legislator who can discuss issues without becoming contentious.

Jim Woodin: Yes. Affable former banker and trust officer who understands finance. He fought high-density housing projects as a community activist, and he defends the Master Plan. Dependable, trustworthy, diplomatic, likeable.

Incumbent Lance MacLean: A big, fat NO. Surly, rude, picks fights with other council members. Immediately flipped on most issues after being elected in 2002. Maligns the city and residents in newspaper interviews. Favors more housing and dismantling of the city’s Master Plan.

Incumbent Trish Kelley: No. Broke all campaign promises; voted for zone changes and high-density housing after fighting such projects years ago in her neighborhood. A smiling face during her campaign cannot compensate for four years of infighting on the council. Zero understanding of financial matters.

Three challengers to avoid at all costs: Numbers 1, 2 and 3 on the ballot – Diane Greenwood, Bill Barker and Justin McCusker. Supported by lobbyists and funded by out-of-town money. They all support more housing and overcrowding.

Diane Greenwood: No. One-issue candidate who wants the power lines buried in her neighborhood at everyone else’s expense. Uses personal attack and intimidation to push her agenda. Lacks believable credentials, despite claims of being a “high-tech entrepreneur.” She’s one of the attack-dog activists.

Bill Barker: No. Ego-driven and becomes belligerent when anyone disagrees with him. He demonstrated as a commissioner an inability to listen to or respect others’ opinions. Wants to be Boss Barker, not Councilman Barker.

Justin McCusker. No. Arrogant, argumentative, immature 31-year-old. Says he was encouraged to run by “businessmen” – (lobbyists). Has attended one council meeting for about 10 minutes. Unknown in the community despite claims of regional fame and grandeur.

Neil Lonsinger. No. He apparently has forgotten his votes as a planning commission when he’s repeatedly overturned commercial zoning and supported high-density and mixed-use housing projects, which he now condemns in his campaign literature. His promises to save the village from urbanization and high density clash with his voting record.

Brian Skalsky. No. This 24-year-old is a sweet kid, but he’s not ready. His na‹vet‚ and lack of leadership are similar to that of Trish Kelley, who has catered to staff opinion and flip-flopped on most issues. Brian would be trampled by almost everyone, including city staff, other council members and a handful of nasty residents who attend every council meeting.

The Buzz column, Oct. 17

The revealing quote of the week comes from candidate Bill Barker: “I’m going to be very powerful in Mission Viejo after the election. I’m going to be the next vice-mayor.” Those who heard the statement were amused with Barker’s confidence. Barker last week told his opponents, “You guys are gonna lose!” Perhaps Bill has spent too much time breathing exhaust fumes while driving around eight hours a day plopping his signs on every corner in town.

***

With 18 days to go until the election, it’s not “anyone’s race.” The weakest incumbent is MacLean, who has no one working in his campaign. A blog staff member finally saw a MacLean sign in a Mission Viejo yard. All MacLean’s other signs are either on public property or in landfills after being removed from public property.

***

Justin McCusker, known as Justintime on his campaign signs, has even fewer supporters than MacLean. Wait – that would be fewer than zero. McCusker has few signs and no one on the street or at public events working for him. McCusker recently withdrew from several slate mailers after a lobbyist went to the trouble of reserving space for him months ago. Perhaps all the cash Ury was planning to squeeze out of city vendors didn’t come through. Anyway, Justintime already indicated at a public meeting that he’s too busy for all this council nonsense. His phone is ringing, and he thinks it might be the governor if not the White House.

***

The lobbyist-funded candidates, Diane Greenwood, Bill Barker and Justintime McCusker, are playing up their positions on the ballot – numbers one, two and three – as being easy to remember. What voters should remember about the trio is “first on the ballot, worst on the ballot.” These three aren’t likely to get traction without a hit piece funded by their lobbyist, John Lewis of Orange, arriving in the mail against the incumbents and any other candidate Lewis thinks is viable.

***

What happened to all the campaign signs that were on every corner, every main drag, every slope and everywhere else? Anyone driving throughout the city would notice that almost all signs have been removed from all streets on any given day. Some candidates with signs to burn put new ones up daily. The man-hours it would take to clear all the signs in a day would far exceed any campaign team’s ability to do it. Highly likely is an order from city hall to all landscape contractors to clean up the place.

***

When Neil Lonsinger said he was funding his own campaign, it may have been because he realized he would get no donations. His statements about his wealth generate no financial support. Lacking volunteers as well, Lonsinger rents help when he needs it. At a recent back-to-school event, a couple kids showed up to distribute his flyers. Someone had driven them to the event, and they looked lost after getting out of the car. A worker from another campaign asked if the person in the car was their mom. One of the kids answered, “No, she’s from the employment agency.” The kids said they’re getting $10 an hour.

***

A blog reader emailed, “After council members have served four years and they won’t leave, why not promote them to kings and queens? They could feel important and not annoy the residents by being on the council. I got the idea after seeing Councilwoman Trish Kelley walk up and down the aisles during a council meeting waving like Queen Elizabeth. This would be the ‘screw-in-the-lightbulb’ wave. It didn’t appear that anyone in the audience was waving back.”

***

How are resident-hosted campaign events going for the10 candidates? Candidates John Paul Ledesma, Michael Ferrall and Jim Woodin have had the biggest turnouts when residents have hosted parties or receptions for them. Trish Kelley’s turnouts have been very low. No one has heard about any events for Lance MacLean, and his fundraisers have been bombs. He could get all his supporters into one SUV: heels on wheels.